Private military security companies have expanded their remit in recent years, raked in higher profits from governments using their services and started to undertake campaigns to legitimate their newfound status.
There are pros and cons to using such companies in wartime, and there is a danger that core defence spending is reduced in favour of such companies, when we could do with some poor bloody infantry and a lot less Eurofighters or useless frigates.
Is it War on Want‘s role to really demand that the government act upon this? Their charitable remit is stated as anti-poverty in their press release, and it is unclear why forcing legislation through Parliament would do anything to reduce poverty or alleged human rights abuses by such companies:
The challenge, from the anti-poverty charity War on Want, follows mounting reports of human rights abuse by mercenaries employed by private military and security companies in war zones such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Last October guards working for British firm Erinys International opened fire on a taxi near Kirkuk, wounding three civilians. In September mercenaries from the American private military company Blackwater killed 17 Iraqi civilians. Earlier a video published on the internet showed mercenaries from UK-based Aegis Defence Services randomly shooting at civilian cars from the back of their vehicle on the road to Baghdad airport. War on Want, calling for legislation including a ban on mercenaries’ use in combat, cites hundreds of incidents which have involved guards from Aegis and another British firm ArmorGroup in shootings. In the first four months of 2007 mercenaries working for ArmorGroup were engaged in combat action 293 times. Aegis mercenaries have been involved in combat action 168 times in the last three years and have seen eight employees killed, according to its chief executive officer, Tim Spicer. Spicer broke a UN arms embargo on Sierra Leone with his former company Sandline International, and was jailed in Papua New Guinea for earlier activities.
The calls for ‘democratic’ control of the private security companies are accompanied by demands that they are not allowed a role in combat. That seems to defeat the point of employing mercenaries and avoids looking at the problem: what rules are required for policing the actions of the private security companies.
The problem of abuse is clear and extends to any party involved in a war zone. Such matters are best dealt with through contract, rules of engagement and local law. If local law is unable to police the activity of mercenaries in a meaningful sense, then self-regulation and internal discipline are second best. If that does not work, then ensure that they are subject to the laws of those who hired them.
War on Want is unable to think beyond the normal route of political control, UN transnational imposition and legislative fiat. Democratic control is a staging post on the road to the complete abolition of such companies. When one sees the allegations, one wonders what states, the icons of democratic justice, have not committed far worse crimes. And their press release gives the impression that their worst crime is to make money, an unpardonable sin for the ethical crusader:
Iraq has turned this commercial opportunity into a huge money spinner, with UK companies among those making a real killing. British companies increased profits from £320 million in 2003 to £1.8 billion in 2004. Estimates have suggested the total income for the private security sector worldwide has reached $80-100 billion a year. In 2006, UK company ArmorGroup saw revenues totalling $273 million. The company earned $133 million in Iraq that year. Aegis and ArmorGroup have won valuable contracts with the US and UK governments in recent months. Aegis has won a new contract with the Pentagon worth $475 million dollars over the next two years. The US Army has favoured the company for a second time, following its earlier $293 million contract from 2004. In 2007 ArmorGroup won the UK government’s £20 million annual contract for security services in Afghanistan. Ruth Tanner, senior campaigns officer at War on Want, said: “Despite increasing evidence on human rights abuse by private military companies in Iraq, the government has failed to act. This free for all cannot be allowed to continue. David Miliband must act on this mercenary crisis as an urgent priority.”
When companies appear unaccountable and their employees free to abuse whomever they like, then there is a role for law: but a charity rationalises this as an improvement in social justice or poverty to undertake a politicised crusade that will not aid anyone apart from the puffed up conscience of the socialist.
This could be one solution to a Libertarian dilemma- how to minimize the state. If we could hire a number of security companies, and fire them, or not renew their contracts, then we wouldn’t need a fixed component (a standing army), and we could avoid military takeovers.
And Congratulations!
I hear that Britain has a Libertarian Party at last! How come there is no announcement here? I think you’d at least have a passing comment, and a link to them.
The Magnificent Seven
is still one of my favorite movies of all time.
Da did did da, da did did da…
They were mercenaries and magnificent!
War on want needs to buy a history book or two
rather than the Guardian every day.
A hell of a lot of armies in the history of this world were mercenaries.
I curious, does “War on Want” have a position on those individuals and groups who violate all internationally agreed upon norms of warfare design expressly to reduce the instances of such events? After all, if certain groups did use civilians as shields and camouflage, anyone fighting them whether private or State actors would have no incentive to ever fire on civilians.
There seems to be a sort of Parkinson’s Law applicable to every “do-good” group, by which the “causes” will expand to fill the opportunities to increase sources of funding.
England shall not stand alone in this; it is an American pattern.
A future Libertarian nation could use these firms as the police of the future, and the armies. Then you’d avoid the perils of a standing army.
And CONGRATULATIONS!!
It’s a baby libertarian party! Why didn’t you tell us?
I do hope you’ll provide links to the little darling?
…but a charity rationalises this as an improvement in social justice or poverty to undertake a politicised crusade that will not aid anyone apart from the puffed up conscience of the socialist.
Well, yes, but that’s the point.
It goes without saying that I refuse to give money to such organisations, period.
The issue of private sector security and related businesses is a good one; a lot of army officers and non-commissioned soldiers can earn significantly more money, without the irksome features of military life, in these businesses. Insurance companies, banks, private wealth management firms, accountants, etc, use these guys sometimes to protect staff, weed out fraudsters and the like. I know an ex-SAS guy who seems to run most of the security operations for South African banks in Jo-berg these days.
British history was arguably shaped by mercenaries. Drake was definitely one; the Royal Navy system of prize money, which I believe ended in the 19th century, was essentially a profit-sharing system designed to recruit sailors and officers. The “letters of marque” system employed by merchant ships used in times of war is another.
Doesn’t also War on Want demand that somebody protect them and their food convoys (if any) from marauders and bandits ?
Isn’t that the usual dumb demand of eating your cake and having it too ?
Good points on regulating mercenaries. Their contracts should include a clause spelling out how violations of the law of war will be handled.
Re: hiring mercenaries to avoid standing armies, might want to look at how unemployed mercenaries occupied their time.
I hate the word mercenery because of it’s negative connotations.
How are the US soldiers not mercenary ? They are professional soldiers, enlisting and geting paid.
Security contractors need to be subject to the law, just like anybody else, not less, and not more – not subject to “special” regulations.
Not that any of these hysterical anti-mercenary types particularly care, but a lot of the details presented in that link are of dubious nature to start with. I can’t speak to the taxi incident, but the Blackwater market shootout and the video tape convoy bit do not appear to have had anything resembling a fair examination in the media. There was additional videotape not widely seen in both incidents.
The average person – let alone the average journalist – is simply too ignorant to even begin to understand half of these things. Worse yet, in the case of the journalists, it’s usually a willing ignorance.
These private security companies are not daft, and I’d wager a lot smarter than the staff and members of War on Want. They’d probably be quite happy for a ban on mercenaries to be implemented, given that they almost certainly deny that they are anything of the kind. They consider themselves, probably with a grin, to be private security contractors and describe themselves thusly.
The situations in Afghanistan and Iraq are getting too dangerous even for these security companies.
Tim Spicer and Sandline did more for the people of Sierra Leone than “War on Want” has ever done.
Have the War on Want trash forgotten about the things the rebels did – the cutting off of hands and arms and the endless rape and murder?
“But Sandline broke a U.N…..”
The mindset of these people.
As for Guineu – it has been ruled by a terrible dictator for many years.
Yet, according to War on Want, Tim Spicer is the bad guy.
Tim Newman:
That’s exactly what Blackwater, DynCorp, etc. are and exactly what they do. They do the same thing as the Wackenhut mall ninja: they deter unwanted people from entering office buildings. In this case, the mall ninja in question is a real ninja and makes $500/day instead of $10/hour, and the intruders in question are George Jihaddi instead of an unwanted salesman, and the office is the US Embassy instead of whatever.
Johnathan Pierce:
It’s a great second job for the qualified. A member of the US armed forces can retire at 20 years of active service, collecting a pension of half of what he made on active duty. At 20 years, the average one is still just shy of 40 years old. A perfect age to find a second job to supplement the half of E-7 or E-8 pay that most people get at the 20-year-out.
The US Army discovered that too many special-operations soldiers were ducking out to join the PMCs. The ended up having to offer re-enlistment bonuses of $100K to keep Special Forces qualified soldiers who had enough years in to retire. $150,000 per year (at least partially tax-free) with every third month off is not a bad deal at all.
DynCorp and US DOS had a vaguely-similar program, in which they were trying to hire US-based cops to train Iraqi police. However, I was still married at the time and ended up withdrawing my application.
is it possible to be a licensed contract mercenary and be legal?is there such thing?if so,where would i get a license and what kind?what laws would one fall under?